>I think I see a bias to over-enthusiasm about the open-source movement to solve everybody's problems, >however.

I absolutely, 100% agree.

>And Gene Sharp couldn't save Belarus then or now, for example, whatever the usefulness of trying to >apply his ideas. You cannot twitter your way out of a bludgeoning by Iranian security goons. While

Nor can you from the PSB cops in Tibet and China, or at the G20 in Pittsburg for that matter. Trust me, I have plenty of personal experience in both being on and supporting people mobilizing on the streets. I also believe the role of technology in supporting the Green Revolution's various actors has been overinflated and used to the benefit more of Twitter and new media technology than for the movement itself. I'll be saying as much at the CSCE hearing.

However, much like Gene Sharp's writings and theories, technology is another tool that can help activists and movements better frame and consider their efforts. Most importantly, it provides an outlet other than violence through which to channel their energy and efforts.

>mobiles might seem ubiquitous, they're also expensive and they inevitably tend to incite partial reading >of complex texts.

I think as a trend, they are getting cheaper and more powerful however. It is also very different in depending which region of the world you are focused on. The battle between China Mobile and China Unicom has created a real push for the adoption of more advanced mobile phones and 2/2.5G data networks throughout China and even Tibet. In Africa, there has been a steady, noticeable shift from SMS-based services to J2ME-based applications that can actual store data on the phone. I think also it is not about every single person having one, but key players (community organizers, local journalists and bloggers, human rights advocates) having access to these tools.

I do a agree about the partial reading, but I did read your entire comment on my mobile phone, though I didn't feel like I could adequately reply to it until I was back on a full size computing device.

>Mobile activists call it “persuasive technology”. I would call it baking ideologies into the tools and propagandizing people in the space.I'm not sure that the ?>apps stores or various social media services should have their public commons taked up with progressive causes constantly beaming messages, or for that

This is an interesting perspective… and I think I agree with it. App stores would start to suck if they became a political battleground. I do like the idea of trying to subvert them, though.. to try and beat out iFart with something that opens peoples minds a bit. Maybe it is about being subtle. Beyond that, I think the important of “app stores” is going to slowly decline, as platforms open up… we are already seeing this with Android, where you can download an app by simply pointing your camera phone at a picture in a magazine.

>Looking at these simplistic diagrams of institutions, I'm also struck by how troublesome it is to positive social activism against such primitive schematics.

Here's an analogy… when I studied music composition in school, we began with a year of writing four-part counterpoint. Over and over again, we learned how to follow basic rules within a fairly rigid definition of correct music. Later, this training, this established model, provided me with a foundation to explore my influences, my ideas, my creativity within a template and a process.

These diagrams should be seen as nothing more than exercises designed to help students realize that even when it comes to being an activist, you must consider, plan, organize, discuss, design… you don't just all at once take to the streets, charge down to the government center and shake your firsts in the air to demand change. When you do that, that is when you get shot at, arrested and ultimately lose. When you bring technology into the mix, you must be responsible about the claims you make of its potential impact or usefulness on any given cause… this process, these exercises are my way of helping the students learn how to do this.

>I think I see a bias to over-enthusiasm about the open-source movement to solve everybody's problems, >however.

I absolutely, 100% agree.

>And Gene Sharp couldn't save Belarus then or now, for example, whatever the usefulness of trying to >apply his ideas. You cannot twitter your way out of a bludgeoning by Iranian security goons. While

Nor can you from the PSB cops in Tibet and China, or at the G20 in Pittsburg for that matter. Trust me, I have plenty of personal experience in both being on and supporting people mobilizing on the streets. I also believe the role of technology in supporting the Green Revolution's various actors has been overinflated and used to the benefit more of Twitter and new media technology than for the movement itself. I'll be saying as much at the CSCE hearing.

However, much like Gene Sharp's writings and theories, technology is another tool that can help activists and movements better frame and consider their efforts. Most importantly, it provides an outlet other than violence through which to channel their energy and efforts.

>mobiles might seem ubiquitous, they're also expensive and they inevitably tend to incite partial reading >of complex texts.

I think as a trend, they are getting cheaper and more powerful however. It is also very different in depending which region of the world you are focused on. The battle between China Mobile and China Unicom has created a real push for the adoption of more advanced mobile phones and 2/2.5G data networks throughout China and even Tibet. In Africa, there has been a steady, noticeable shift from SMS-based services to J2ME-based applications that can actual store data on the phone. I think also it is not about every single person having one, but key players (community organizers, local journalists and bloggers, human rights advocates) having access to these tools.

I do a agree about the partial reading, but I did read your entire comment on my mobile phone, though I didn't feel like I could adequately reply to it until I was back on a full size computing device.

>Mobile activists call it “persuasive technology”. I would call it baking ideologies into the tools and propagandizing people in the space.I'm not sure that the ?>apps stores or various social media services should have their public commons taked up with progressive causes constantly beaming messages, or for that

This is an interesting perspective… and I think I agree with it. App stores would start to suck if they became a political battleground. I do like the idea of trying to subvert them, though.. to try and beat out iFart with something that opens peoples minds a bit. Maybe it is about being subtle. Beyond that, I think the important of “app stores” is going to slowly decline, as platforms open up… we are already seeing this with Android, where you can download an app by simply pointing your camera phone at a picture in a magazine.

>Looking at these simplistic diagrams of institutions, I'm also struck by how troublesome it is to positive social activism against such primitive schematics.

Here's an analogy… when I studied music composition in school, we began with a year of writing four-part counterpoint. Over and over again, we learned how to follow basic rules within a fairly rigid definition of correct music. Later, this training, this established model, provided me with a foundation to explore my influences, my ideas, my creativity within a template and a process.

These diagrams should be seen as nothing more than exercises designed to help students realize that even when it comes to being an activist, you must consider, plan, organize, discuss, design… you don't just all at once take to the streets, charge down to the government center and shake your firsts in the air to demand change. When you do that, that is when you get shot at, arrested and ultimately lose. When you bring technology into the mix, you must be responsible about the claims you make of its potential impact or usefulness on any given cause… this process, these exercises are my way of helping the students learn how to do this.

I think I see a bias to over-enthusiasm about the open-source movement to solve everybody's problems, however.

And Gene Sharp couldn't save Belarus then or now, for example, whatever the usefulness of trying to apply his ideas. You cannot twitter your way out of a bludgeoning by Iranian security goons. While mobiles might seem ubiquitous, they're also expensive and they inevitably tend to incite partial reading of complex texts.

Mobile activists call it “persuasive technology”. I would call it baking ideologies into the tools and propagandizing people in the space.

I'm not sure that the apps stores or various social media services should have their public commons taked up with progressive causes constantly beaming messages, or for that matter, conservative causes which presumably the progressive causists would concede should have rights in the mobile commons, too.

It's not just the proprietary companies and their restrictive TOS you have to be concerned about; you have to ask where the First Amendment and the “town hall” will really take place, when it has to be guarded not only by and from corporations but by and from zealous and aggressive social activists groups that want to seize what is essentially interactive in nature and turn it into a broadcasting tool for their own ideologies.

Looking at these simplistic diagrams of institutions, I'm also struck by how troublesome it is to positive social activism against such primitive schematics.

I think I see a bias to over-enthusiasm about the open-source movement to solve everybody's problems, however.

And Gene Sharp couldn't save Belarus then or now, for example, whatever the usefulness of trying to apply his ideas. You cannot twitter your way out of a bludgeoning by Iranian security goons. While mobiles might seem ubiquitous, they're also expensive and they inevitably tend to incite partial reading of complex texts.

Mobile activists call it “persuasive technology”. I would call it baking ideologies into the tools and propagandizing people in the space.

I'm not sure that the apps stores or various social media services should have their public commons taked up with progressive causes constantly beaming messages, or for that matter, conservative causes which presumably the progressive causists would concede should have rights in the mobile commons, too.

It's not just the proprietary companies and their restrictive TOS you have to be concerned about; you have to ask where the First Amendment and the “town hall” will really take place, when it has to be guarded not only by and from corporations but by and from zealous and aggressive social activists groups that want to seize what is essentially interactive in nature and turn it into a broadcasting tool for their own ideologies.

Looking at these simplistic diagrams of institutions, I'm also struck by how troublesome it is to positive social activism against such primitive schematics.

http://www.canvasopedia.org/legacy/files/variou...

Otherwise, great article! Thank you much.

http://www.canvasopedia.org/legacy/files/variou...

Otherwise, great article! Thank you much.